Yeah that's the obvious one. But that's a sport, and sports is plural. I'm wanting the other one.
I'm not actually certain boxing is worse than football in the first place, football has much harder impacts, but given boxing is dieing all by itself its likely a moot point.
And how does that make the fact that there are issues with leveling if you don't do that "a load of hooey"? And "viable" means viable for the normal game play which involves killing things.
You can beat Morrowind without abusing the alchemy system, that doesn't mean the issues with the alchemy system are "a load of hooey".
The whole point is that they are fine in a single player game. But having such balance issues is completely game breaking in a multiplayer game.
Which is good since a multiplayer Elder Scrolls game by Bethesda would be a disaster.
Given they just love the over powered game destroying garbage that is only bearable because you can "just not do that" in single player (Intelligence potion making/drinking cycles in Morrowind as the obvious example).
All I said was that your original argument that "the bible says so means it is so" is incorrect.
I never claimed that so have fun with your straw man. I gave one example that most people will have heard of in reply to a statement in a slashdot comment. If you expect rigorous citations in this forum you are a moron. I intentionally qualified my claim, which you ignored in order to build with that straw.
I am a professor of logic now so that may have something to do with the zealotry in my responses here, but all I'm saying is that simply changing your initial statement from "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old." to "there are references to monogamy in the dead sea scrolls." ends all discussion on the topic because you've provided hard evidence to bolster your argument.
You are a spectacularly bad professor of logic, but to each his own.
Seriously read it: "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old".
Do you disputed that there are parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old? Apparently not, and you'd have to be really stupid to do so since we have plenty of copies that are more than a few hundred years old.
Do you disputed that some parts of the bible reference monogamy? Apparently not, since you claim to know a bit about it and didn't challenge that part.
So, you disputed that there's an intersection of those two? Obviously not since you took my completely unsourced claim that the dead sea scrolls do in fact contain such references without challenge.
Changing the statement to the dead sea scrolls just excudes a whole bunch of other copies that are more than a few hundred years old. We have a vulgate from the 8th century, for example. Why would I want to do that.
And how does your logic zealotry lead you to " didn't read your link because your first statement is just silly". An obviously factual claim is just silly?
There'd be no issue with saying "I don't think there are any biblical manuscripts that are more than a few hundred years old and hence don't believe your claim". It'd be wrong of course, but that's fine.
There'd be no issue with saying "I don't think there are any such references in the manuscripts that are more than few years old, it's just in more recent ones". Again, it'd be wrong but perfectly fine to state and await evidence.
But you didn't do any of those. You just declared it "silly". An true statement that lacks rigorous citation is "silly"? In a slashdot comment?
Of course asking for a citation would be to much for your professorship, so instead declare it "silly" and don't bother with an unrelated point that clearly was a citation all by itself.
It doesn't matter that what we have is copies. If the copy is more than a few hundred years old then it is irrelevant if it was edited before then. It established the reference as older than a few hundred years.
The ten commandments would be the obvious passage. Don't commit adultery. We have copies that are 2000 years old - the nash papyrus and the dead sea scrolls.
That says nothing about evolutionary reasons. Sure it's a feature of the anatomy but you can't leap to declaring an evolutionary cause from that. Well if you are a real scientist, if you are a psychologist or a sociologist or an economist then go right ahead as usual.
Maybe the mutation that resulted in the changing of the shape also had other effects. And those effects are what gave a fitness edge and the anatomy just came along for free.
Maybe there was a population bottleneck at some point and that feature just happened to make it through by pure chance.
You can't just pick your favorite reason and claim it as a fact with no evidence.
Sure it has. And there are lots of parts that we have copies of that are more than a few hundred years old. So how is that relevant in the slightest.
If you have some strange irrational fear of the bible as a set of documents then we have a bunch of records from China related to marriage significantly older than a few hundred years.
Confucius talked about it a lot, for example. Or is that all edited by the illuminai in your paranoid world?
There is no citation for the first since it's clearly not true (without using a strange definition of few) - there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old.
The BLOG post you linked to is full of "may be" and we don't know.
Given we don't have temperature measuring satellites and weather monitoring ground stations covering any of the planets execpt Earth, only an idiot would make claims without stating that they don't know for sure. Using that as a point of criticism is even more stupid.
He consistently claims there is no warming, then claims that we don't know what's causing the warming. For example, on Jupiter he claims that there is no evidence for warming and then in the same paragraph claims that the warming may be local.?
Why not try actually arguing against the claims made by others rather than just pretending they said something you would rather argue against.
There is no claim of "no warming" on Jupiter in the statement you cite.
There is a claim that some evidence being presented as being for global warming of Jupiter isn't in fact anything of the sort and is only an indication of local warming. In other words is neither provides evidence for global warming, nor against global warming.
Again, MAY BE local. And if there is no evidence of warming, what local warming is he talking about?
Again, there was no such claim. You are making stuff up again.
There's a claim that there's no evidence of global warming. But that there is evidence of local warming. Is that really so hard to grasp?
Am I the only one who fails to see the massive logic fail in that statement? If methane only lasts for 9-15 years, how is more effective at trapping heat over a 100 year period?
Yes you are. Everyone else who thought it was problematic spent 10 seconds looking it up or just made the reasonable deduction that methane is unlikely to exit into space since it has a C atom and is unlikely to be engaging in nuclear fusion or fission in the atmosphere. So chemistry is the likelt mechanism of removal. Given there's a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere we are left with a likely candidate (which is we did 10 seconds of research instead of just thinking about it we know for a fact rather than being likely):
CH4 + 2 O2 => CO2 + 2 H2O
So yes if something has higher greenhouse contribution than CO2 for 10 years and then turns into CO2 and stays that way for 90 years it will have an overall larger contrubution than CO2 would for 100 years.
If that's your idea BS, in fact a "gem" of BS, then you really don't understand anything about topic and should probably learn some basic science. Or if that's too much work maybe try trusting the scientists who bothered doing some work?
That the people involved did in fact commit crimes and prosecuting them is perfectly fine isn't the point, it's a usefullnes issue. From the article:
This is legal, but is it legitimate? Without the F.B.I., would the culprits commit violence on their own? Is cultivating potential terrorists the best use of the manpower designed to find the real ones?
It can't be that hard to find someone willing to blow people up - there's plenty of crazy people around. Do we really gain anything by removing a handful of morons from the potential recruit pool? If we do then is what we gain worth the cost - both direct and the opportunity cost of the agents involved not doing other work?
How do you "dominate" a list without being the in top place and only having one entry?
Do you also complain that "the United States isn't a university" when some article says "The United States dominates the list of the world's ten best universities though the University of Cambridge tops the list"?
A pickaxe and an axe? Just a piece of bismuthinite, a piece of cassiterite, a couple of pieces of tetrahedrite, a random rock. They can rip apart their wagon and build an axe from the wood in it.
We don't have any employees in your state, so here is your 0% of our profit.
Who are all those workers you ask? Well, they're actually employed by that other company over there. We pay that company and they provide us with bodies to do some work - contracters we call them. So I suggest you chase up that company for their income tax payments, though I hear they make very little profit.
Sure prices don't change instantly, especially for physical objects in which they've been paid for already and shipped to storage.
But using a 10 year old exchange makes no sense. The AUD:USD has been about 1:1 (obviously it bounces around - Australia is small and exports a lot of commodities making for relatively large short term changes) since Oct 2010.
Now clearly they can charge whatever they want to charge (and the Australian government getting involved is silly), but Australians are also allowed to complain about paying double what Americans pay for the same thing. And charging more makes sense - for products which actually have almost 0 marginal cost you want to sell them cheap in poor countries and sell the for more in rich countries.
Of course anyone with half a brain just buys it from overseas anyway - though that can make for some support issues for some items.
I guess the government could try passing laws that say something along lines of: "If you sell a product in Australia that offers support then you must also support instances purchases overseas that are under an equivalent support offer in the country purchased from". Of course there are huge issues with language differences and feature differences and as you tighten up on that the producer making subtle differences to the Australian version just to trigger them being not equivalent. Now I don't actually think that would be a good idea.
As for the strength of the Australian dollar, that is purely a rubbish argument, because US companies typically price their software in US dollars, and let the exchange rate take care of itself.
They clearly don't. 10 years ago the AUD was worth US$0.50, now it's worth US$1. Software prices in Australia are not 50% less than they were (relative to US prices).
For example Office Professional Edition 2003 was announced at US$499 in 2003 in the US, but at AUD$899 in Australia. The AUD was worth USD$0.65 at the time. So the Australian version was USD$584 and USD$53 of that is GST giving a $32 or 6% premium over the US price which no one complained about since that's reasonable.
Now Microsoft Office Professional 2010 (2 PC/1 user version) is AUD$849 in Australia. It is USD$499.95 in the US. The AUD is currently worth USD$1.05. So the Australian version is USD$891 of which USD$81 is GST giving a USD$310 or 62% premium.
Notice even though the AUD has increased in value by about 60% in that time frame the relative USD/AUD prices have essentially remained unchanged (wooho a $50 reduction in Oz).
Australians wish they priced in USD, since then prices would have fallen by almost half over that time frame.
So how do you explain a 6% premium turning into a 60% premium? What massive changes product liability and taxation systems do you think happen in Australia?
Australia has a GST tax. Just figuring out if you are liable for this will cost you a bundle. Collecting it and dealing with it from Chicago will cost you more in terms of staff time, and hiring work done in Australia.
Oh sure. It's real hard. If you are you selling it in Australia then you add 10% to the price and send that in to the government. If you are selling it outside of Australia then you do nothing. Wow, that's so complicated! All software qualifies for the GST making it even simpler to work out.
Over two years after he published said book. His license was revoked because he violated the terms of it.
Sure the two events were most likely related, but it he didn't lose a job for the book he lost it for possession of illicit drugs that he didn't create in his lab under his license.
It's got nothing to do with empathy. There are two factors at work: greed and fear.
Greed makes people want to risk money in order to make more money. Fear makes people not want to risk their money.
When interest are held too low for too long greed goes up - investors need to take bigger risks in order to make reasonable returns.
When investors see that they are always being bailed out (the Greenspan Put has a name for a reason) fear is reduced.
So we got outselves into a situation of high greed and low fear - a guaranteed bubble. Sure the housing bubble was helped along by some stupid government policies, but fundamentally it was just a continuation of the tech stock bubble - the money had to go somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like when the PS3 was launched in November 2006. And then Sony put out a new model of the PS2 in July 2007?
Yeah that's the obvious one. But that's a sport, and sports is plural. I'm wanting the other one.
I'm not actually certain boxing is worse than football in the first place, football has much harder impacts, but given boxing is dieing all by itself its likely a moot point.
And how does that make the fact that there are issues with leveling if you don't do that "a load of hooey"? And "viable" means viable for the normal game play which involves killing things.
You can beat Morrowind without abusing the alchemy system, that doesn't mean the issues with the alchemy system are "a load of hooey".
The whole point is that they are fine in a single player game. But having such balance issues is completely game breaking in a multiplayer game.
Such as?
Obviously if you stay at level 1 you won't hit a problem caused by levelling up. Are you really stupid enough to think that you would?
And I don't think alchemy was a problem in Oblivion either, they removed the morrowind sillyness.
" does something" != "seizing property".
Publically announcing every phone they tap they make while good for transparency would sigficantly reduce the usefullness of the legitimate cases.
Which is good since a multiplayer Elder Scrolls game by Bethesda would be a disaster.
Given they just love the over powered game destroying garbage that is only bearable because you can "just not do that" in single player (Intelligence potion making/drinking cycles in Morrowind as the obvious example).
I never claimed that so have fun with your straw man. I gave one example that most people will have heard of in reply to a statement in a slashdot comment. If you expect rigorous citations in this forum you are a moron. I intentionally qualified my claim, which you ignored in order to build with that straw.
You are a spectacularly bad professor of logic, but to each his own.
Seriously read it: "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old".
Do you disputed that there are parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old? Apparently not, and you'd have to be really stupid to do so since we have plenty of copies that are more than a few hundred years old.
Do you disputed that some parts of the bible reference monogamy? Apparently not, since you claim to know a bit about it and didn't challenge that part.
So, you disputed that there's an intersection of those two? Obviously not since you took my completely unsourced claim that the dead sea scrolls do in fact contain such references without challenge.
Changing the statement to the dead sea scrolls just excudes a whole bunch of other copies that are more than a few hundred years old. We have a vulgate from the 8th century, for example. Why would I want to do that.
And how does your logic zealotry lead you to " didn't read your link because your first statement is just silly". An obviously factual claim is just silly?
There'd be no issue with saying "I don't think there are any biblical manuscripts that are more than a few hundred years old and hence don't believe your claim". It'd be wrong of course, but that's fine.
There'd be no issue with saying "I don't think there are any such references in the manuscripts that are more than few years old, it's just in more recent ones". Again, it'd be wrong but perfectly fine to state and await evidence.
But you didn't do any of those. You just declared it "silly". An true statement that lacks rigorous citation is "silly"? In a slashdot comment?
Of course asking for a citation would be to much for your professorship, so instead declare it "silly" and don't bother with an unrelated point that clearly was a citation all by itself.
In summary, you are a fool.
It doesn't matter that what we have is copies. If the copy is more than a few hundred years old then it is irrelevant if it was edited before then. It established the reference as older than a few hundred years.
The ten commandments would be the obvious passage. Don't commit adultery. We have copies that are 2000 years old - the nash papyrus and the dead sea scrolls.
That says nothing about evolutionary reasons. Sure it's a feature of the anatomy but you can't leap to declaring an evolutionary cause from that. Well if you are a real scientist, if you are a psychologist or a sociologist or an economist then go right ahead as usual.
Maybe the mutation that resulted in the changing of the shape also had other effects. And those effects are what gave a fitness edge and the anatomy just came along for free.
Maybe there was a population bottleneck at some point and that feature just happened to make it through by pure chance.
You can't just pick your favorite reason and claim it as a fact with no evidence.
Sure it has. And there are lots of parts that we have copies of that are more than a few hundred years old. So how is that relevant in the slightest.
If you have some strange irrational fear of the bible as a set of documents then we have a bunch of records from China related to marriage significantly older than a few hundred years.
Confucius talked about it a lot, for example. Or is that all edited by the illuminai in your paranoid world?
There is no citation for the first since it's clearly not true (without using a strange definition of few) - there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old.
For the second: http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep021223.pdf
Given we don't have temperature measuring satellites and weather monitoring ground stations covering any of the planets execpt Earth, only an idiot would make claims without stating that they don't know for sure. Using that as a point of criticism is even more stupid.
Why not try actually arguing against the claims made by others rather than just pretending they said something you would rather argue against.
There is no claim of "no warming" on Jupiter in the statement you cite.
There is a claim that some evidence being presented as being for global warming of Jupiter isn't in fact anything of the sort and is only an indication of local warming. In other words is neither provides evidence for global warming, nor against global warming.
Again, there was no such claim. You are making stuff up again.
There's a claim that there's no evidence of global warming. But that there is evidence of local warming. Is that really so hard to grasp?
Yes you are. Everyone else who thought it was problematic spent 10 seconds looking it up or just made the reasonable deduction that methane is unlikely to exit into space since it has a C atom and is unlikely to be engaging in nuclear fusion or fission in the atmosphere. So chemistry is the likelt mechanism of removal. Given there's a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere we are left with a likely candidate (which is we did 10 seconds of research instead of just thinking about it we know for a fact rather than being likely):
CH4 + 2 O2 => CO2 + 2 H2O
So yes if something has higher greenhouse contribution than CO2 for 10 years and then turns into CO2 and stays that way for 90 years it will have an overall larger contrubution than CO2 would for 100 years.
If that's your idea BS, in fact a "gem" of BS, then you really don't understand anything about topic and should probably learn some basic science. Or if that's too much work maybe try trusting the scientists who bothered doing some work?
That the people involved did in fact commit crimes and prosecuting them is perfectly fine isn't the point, it's a usefullnes issue. From the article:
It can't be that hard to find someone willing to blow people up - there's plenty of crazy people around. Do we really gain anything by removing a handful of morons from the potential recruit pool? If we do then is what we gain worth the cost - both direct and the opportunity cost of the agents involved not doing other work?
How do you "dominate" a list without being the in top place and only having one entry?
Do you also complain that "the United States isn't a university" when some article says "The United States dominates the list of the world's ten best universities though the University of Cambridge tops the list"?
No they didn't.
In order to "dominate" a list of 5 items and yet not be the top item you have to occupy multiple spots in the list.
Hence, more than one of cities (3 to be precise) in the list are cities in New Jersey.
But yes it's terrible wording.
A pickaxe and an axe? Just a piece of bismuthinite, a piece of cassiterite, a couple of pieces of tetrahedrite, a random rock. They can rip apart their wagon and build an axe from the wood in it.
It's specifically an Australian company. Australia does have some rules about having to disclose when you are being paid to say something.
They apply to the media, but who knows when a court will decide that a tweet is the same as a hosting a radio show.
Dear State,
We don't have any employees in your state, so here is your 0% of our profit.
Who are all those workers you ask? Well, they're actually employed by that other company over there. We pay that company and they provide us with bodies to do some work - contracters we call them. So I suggest you chase up that company for their income tax payments, though I hear they make very little profit.
I didn't apologie for them and didn't give an opinion on the War on Drugs at all.
If the guy flying the plane reacts to the STALL warning going off by pulling the stick back then you are already dead.
It's just a matter of time.
Sure prices don't change instantly, especially for physical objects in which they've been paid for already and shipped to storage.
But using a 10 year old exchange makes no sense. The AUD:USD has been about 1:1 (obviously it bounces around - Australia is small and exports a lot of commodities making for relatively large short term changes) since Oct 2010.
Now clearly they can charge whatever they want to charge (and the Australian government getting involved is silly), but Australians are also allowed to complain about paying double what Americans pay for the same thing. And charging more makes sense - for products which actually have almost 0 marginal cost you want to sell them cheap in poor countries and sell the for more in rich countries.
Of course anyone with half a brain just buys it from overseas anyway - though that can make for some support issues for some items.
I guess the government could try passing laws that say something along lines of: "If you sell a product in Australia that offers support then you must also support instances purchases overseas that are under an equivalent support offer in the country purchased from". Of course there are huge issues with language differences and feature differences and as you tighten up on that the producer making subtle differences to the Australian version just to trigger them being not equivalent. Now I don't actually think that would be a good idea.
They clearly don't. 10 years ago the AUD was worth US$0.50, now it's worth US$1. Software prices in Australia are not 50% less than they were (relative to US prices).
For example Office Professional Edition 2003 was announced at US$499 in 2003 in the US, but at AUD$899 in Australia. The AUD was worth USD$0.65 at the time. So the Australian version was USD$584 and USD$53 of that is GST giving a $32 or 6% premium over the US price which no one complained about since that's reasonable.
Now Microsoft Office Professional 2010 (2 PC/1 user version) is AUD$849 in Australia. It is USD$499.95 in the US. The AUD is currently worth USD$1.05. So the Australian version is USD$891 of which USD$81 is GST giving a USD$310 or 62% premium.
Notice even though the AUD has increased in value by about 60% in that time frame the relative USD/AUD prices have essentially remained unchanged (wooho a $50 reduction in Oz).
Australians wish they priced in USD, since then prices would have fallen by almost half over that time frame.
So how do you explain a 6% premium turning into a 60% premium? What massive changes product liability and taxation systems do you think happen in Australia?
Oh sure. It's real hard. If you are you selling it in Australia then you add 10% to the price and send that in to the government. If you are selling it outside of Australia then you do nothing. Wow, that's so complicated! All software qualifies for the GST making it even simpler to work out.
Over two years after he published said book. His license was revoked because he violated the terms of it.
Sure the two events were most likely related, but it he didn't lose a job for the book he lost it for possession of illicit drugs that he didn't create in his lab under his license.
It's got nothing to do with empathy. There are two factors at work: greed and fear.
Greed makes people want to risk money in order to make more money. Fear makes people not want to risk their money.
When interest are held too low for too long greed goes up - investors need to take bigger risks in order to make reasonable returns.
When investors see that they are always being bailed out (the Greenspan Put has a name for a reason) fear is reduced.
So we got outselves into a situation of high greed and low fear - a guaranteed bubble. Sure the housing bubble was helped along by some stupid government policies, but fundamentally it was just a continuation of the tech stock bubble - the money had to go somewhere.